In fact, I view the poll numbers and the lukewarm reactions to this pending legislation as an egg that wonÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢t hatch because itÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢s been sat on for far too long by an impotent brood of ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã…â€œbantyÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã‚? roosters who have repeatedly placed partisan objectives ahead of pragmatic and prudent policy. What we are witnessing is simply the acknowledgment that reality has come home to roostÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã‚Â¦and it has been forever altered by the proverbial practice of ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã…â€œhead in the sandÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã‚? hegemony and hypocrisy.

Let me attempt to explain what I mean. First, letÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢s look at some of the arguments being advanced in George WillÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢s op-ed piece.

Compromise is incessantly praised, and it has produced the proposed immigration legislation. But compromise is the mother of complexity, which, regarding immigration, virtually guarantees — as the public understands — weak enforcement and noncompliance.

In 1986, when there probably were 3 million to 5 million illegal immigrants, Americans accepted an amnesty because they were promised that border control would promptly follow. Today the 12 million illegal immigrants, 60 percent of whom have been here five or more years, are as numerous as Pennsylvanians; 44 states have populations smaller than 12 million. Deporting the 12 million would require police resources and methods from which the nation would rightly flinch. So, why not leave bad enough alone?

Concentrate on border control and on workplace enforcement facilitated by a biometric identification card issued to immigrants who are or will arrive here legally. Treat the problem of the 12 million with benign neglect. Their children born here are American citizens; the parents of these children will pass away.

Were I living in the civil war era, I might conclude that The Reconstruction had commencedÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã‚Â¦though this time in the form of rewriting history to mask the motives that allowed the 1986 policy to morph into an illegal immigrant incubator. Ask the owner of any small business in operation during this period and they will gladly confirm that the process of worker verification had been given a virtual vasectomyÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã‚Â¦rendering it harmless, helpless, and hopeless.

Enforcement of this measure, intended to turn off the magnet attracting illegals in the first place, was spotty at first and is now virtually nonexistent. Even when the law was passed, Congress pulled its punch by not requiring the development of a mechanism for employers to verify the legal status of new hires, forcing the system to fall back on a blizzard of easily forged paper documents.

And even under this flawed system, the INS was publicly slapped down when it did try to enforce the law. When the agency conducted raids during Georgia’s Vidalia onion harvest in 1998, thousands of illegal aliens ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã¢â‚¬? knowingly hired by the farmers ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã¢â‚¬? abandoned the fields to avoid arrest. By the end of the week, both of the state’s senators and three congressmen ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã¢â‚¬? Republicans and Democrats ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã¢â‚¬? had sent an outraged letter to Washington complaining that the INS “does not understand the needs of America’s farmers,” and that was the end of that.

So, the INS tried out a “kinder, gentler” means of enforcing the law, which fared no better. Rather than conduct raids on individual employers, Operation Vanguard in sought to identify illegal workers at all meatpacking plants in Nebraska through audits of personnel records. The INS then asked to interview those employees who appeared to be unauthorized ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã¢â‚¬? and the illegals ran off. The procedure was remarkably successful, and was meant to be repeated every two or three months until the plants were weaned from their dependence on illegal labor.

Local law-enforcement officials were very pleased with the results, but employers and politicians vociferously criticized the very idea of enforcing the immigration law. Gov. Mike Johanns organized a task force to oppose the operation; the meat packers and the ranchers hired former Gov. Ben Nelson to lobby on their behalf; and, in Washington, Sen. Chuck Hagel (R., Neb.) (coauthor, with Tom Daschle, of the newest amnesty bill, S.2010) made it his mission in life to pressure the Justice Department to stop. They succeeded, the operation was ended, and the INS veteran who thought it up in the first place is now enjoying early retirement.

The INS got the message and developed a new interior-enforcement policy that gave up on trying to actually reassert control over immigration and focused almost entirely on the important, but narrow, issues of criminal aliens and smugglers. As INS policy director Robert Bach told the New York Times in a 2000 story appropriately entitled “I.N.S. Is Looking the Other Way as Illegal Immigrants Fill Jobs”: “It is just the market at work, drawing people to jobs, and the INS has chosen to concentrate its actions on aliens who are a danger to the community.” The result is clear ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã¢â‚¬? the San Diego Union-Tribune reported earlier this month that from 1992 to 2002, the number of companies fined for hiring illegal workers fell from 1,063 to 13. That’s thirteen. In the whole country.

So when Will states that the problem was ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã…â€œweak enforcement and noncomplianceÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã‚?, he is only offering a superficial view of the problem. The law was sufficientÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã‚Â¦but the will of the government (executed by elected officials)ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã‚Â¦tempered by the economic concerns of important constituent groups and the politicians who needed their votesÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã‚Â¦didnÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢t exist for long, if at all.

What resulted was a confluence of competing interests that enabled the unbridled and unchecked flow of immigrants into the country. Republicans satisfied their corporate supporters and Democrats tallied the numbers of a rapidly expanding voting block. Keep in mind the relevant datesÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã‚Â¦from 1986 to 1992 we had a Republican in the White House and from 1992 through 2000, we had a Democratic presidentÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã‚Â¦all followed by the seven years of festering and fractional concerns that have plagued the Bush administrationÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢s tenure. So if it wasnÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢t solely Republican or Democratic malfeasance that defined these years, what was it? Perhaps politicians of all flavors were savoring the perceived spoils?

2 Responses to “Who Is Baking The Immigration Cake?”

I always felt there should be a three way approach to this problem:
First, enforce the laws on hiring illegals, it is basically an industry subsidy and needs to stop.
Second, police the border and actively deport people who are found illegally in the country, too many people are picked up on routine traffic stops and let go for lack of enforcement.
Third, make a real effort to boost the economy of Latin America and Mexico in particular. Why on earth are we having China do our manufacturing when a vibrant Latin America would be not only a great trading partner but at the same time reduce the desire to emigrate to the US with jobs available at home.

So when Will states that the problem was ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã…â€œweak enforcement and noncomplianceÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã‚?, he is only offering a superficial view of the problem. The law was sufficientÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã‚Â¦but the will of the government (executed by elected officials)ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã‚Â¦tempered by the economic concerns of important constituent groups and the politicians who needed their votesÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã‚Â¦didnÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢t exist for long, if at all.

You’re right, which is why the idea of a cement wall stretching across the border sounds more and more appealling to me. Cement walls don’t have the economic concerns of constituent groups to worry about. They are also the least expensive solution to the problem.

Leave a Reply

Name (required)

Mail (will not be published) (required)

Website

NOTE TO COMMENTERS:

You must ALWAYS fill in the two word CAPTCHA below to submit a comment. And if this is your first time commenting on Donklephant, it will be held in a moderation queue for approval. Please don't resubmit the same comment a couple times. We'll get around to moderating it soon enough.

Also, sometimes even if you've commented before, it may still get placed in a moderation queue and/or sent to the spam folder. If it's just in moderation queue, it'll be published, but it may be deleted if it lands in the spam folder. My apologies if this happens but there are some keywords that push it into the spam folder.

One last note, we will not tolerate comments that disparage people based on age, sex, handicap, race, color, sexual orientation, national origin or ancestry. We reserve the right to delete these comments and ban the people who make them from ever commenting here again.

Thanks for understanding and have a pleasurable commenting experience.